It hardly needs pointing out, but this statement shows that danshawen hasn't come to grips with the basics of relativity. If you don't understand what a reference frame is - and clearly danshawen does not - you're not equipped to do anything much in relativity. This is pure pseudoscience. A reference frame is a coordinate system. It has nothing to do with photons or matter or rotational propagating modes. Also, I note that the origin of inertia is not explained in any sense by danshawen, who only makes empty claims on that topic. It seems that danshawen holds the "energy is a mysterious glowing substance" view that is common among pseudoscientists and purveyors of crystal healing. Contrary to this popular but erroneous view, energy is not a substance. This is an empty claim with no support (so far). Show me the maths. (And that's assuming you can make the idea that energy propagates make some sort of sense, which itself is dubious in the extreme.) There is no manifest graininess to time. There's actually no need for Minkowski, or anybody else, to support an ill-defined idea that danshawen just dreamed up. danshawen has done nothing to show that Lorentz covariance is in any way flawed. In fact, I doubt he knows what it is. Maybe so. I don't know which area of science danshawen is referring to here. It can't be anything to do with the theory of relativity, which has advanced significantly in the last 100 years. Huh? Does danshawen believe that the "clock paradox" was only solved in the 1990s? What is he referring to, exactly? Does this mean that danshawen believes that objects have two different kinds of mass? Of course not. All that F=ma stuff is clearly useless! Show me the maths. danshawen should google "reference frame" and try to learn some physics. danshawen is confused about the difference between inertia and force? No. M-M was all about trying to measure the ether drift. It turned out there was no ether. danshawen would do well to explain what this "gravitational mass" is that he keeps referring to, since physicists recognise no such thing. The discovery of the Higgs boson has not caused an upheaval in quantum physics, or in our understanding of time, or any of the other nonsense that danshawen is referring to. Recall that the existence of the Higgs boson was predicted. What is "static" supposed to mean in this context? And what is "relativistic space"? How does that differ from non-relativistic space? What does a person do when they know a few buzzwords but little to no actual physics?